Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 425 (CAL)

Sanjay Kr. Roy v. State of West Bengal

2001-07-13

AMIT TALUKDAR

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. This application has been filed on behalf of the aforesaid petitioners who have been charge-sheeted in connection with G.R. Case No. 79 of 2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 323/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of First Information Report lodged by the Opposite Party No.2. 2. The prayer has been made in this application for quashing on the merit of the First Information Report lodged by the Opposite Party No.2., At the time of moving this application, the learned Advocate for the petitioner abandoned the prayer on merit but submitted that since compromise has already been effected between the petitioners and the Opposite Party No. 2., this Court should quash the proceeding. He has referred to an ex parte decree of divorce passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, and as also the letter written to the Officer-in-Charge of the Asansol Police Station on 2.3.2001 intimating the desire of the Opposite Party No.2 to compromise with the petitioners. He has further referred to a petition filed before the Additional Judicial Commissioner at Ranchi in connection with Matrimonial Title Suit No. 22/2000 wherein the Opposite Party No.2 who had earlier filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for selling aside the ex parte decree of divorce and has also withdrawn the said application under Order 9 Rule 13 on the ground that there had been an effective compromise and the petitioners have paid a substantial amount to the Opposite Party No.2. 3. Relying on the aforesaid circumstances, and the documents which formed part of the application, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the proceeding should be quashed by this Court and more so when the Opposite Party No.2 had filed the First Information Report on 1.12.2000 and as the decree was passed on 25.8.2000, she was not the wife on the said date. As such no case under Section 498A could be registered. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 except saying that the matter has been compromised and does not make any further submission. As such no case under Section 498A could be registered. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 except saying that the matter has been compromised and does not make any further submission. On the other hand, the learned Advocate appearing for the State has submitted at length and has placed the case diary and showed that charge-sheet has already been submitted against all the accused-petitioners on 2nd March, 2001 being charge-sheet No. 40 of 2001 disclosing sufficient materials against the aforesaid petitioners. He has further submitted that as charge-sheet was already submitted, this Court cannot quash the First Information Report on the basis of a compromise the original papers of which are not forthcoming before this Court. He has further submitted that the offences are non-compoundable offence and the Court cannot quash the proceeding simply on the basis of the prayer made by the petitioner at this stage. He has also pointed out that the arguments of the learned Advocate of the petitioner that the F.I.R. was lodged on a date and at a time when he has already divorced cannot bear any merit as the date of torture relates to 28th June, 1997 onwards when she was very much the wife of the petitioner No. 1. 5. Having heard the submissions of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and on considering the materials-on record including the case diary, I am of the view that an order of compromise effected between the parties cannot have any bearing on a revisional application for quashing the same. Apart from the fact that there is no original document forthcoming simply on the basis of the submissions and even then if the documents were there, a revisional Court cannot act as a trial Court and translate the said document into evidence and accede to the prayer of the petitioner. That apart as has been rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate appearing for the State that the letter written to the Asansol Police Station by the O.P. No.2 for compounding the offences cannot be taken into account as on the said date on which the letter was written. charge-sheet has already been submitted. That apart as has been rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate appearing for the State that the letter written to the Asansol Police Station by the O.P. No.2 for compounding the offences cannot be taken into account as on the said date on which the letter was written. charge-sheet has already been submitted. That apart there is also much substance in the submission of the learned Advocate appearing for the State that the cause of action of torture arose on and from 28.5.1997 onwards and since the offence under Section 498A is a continuing offence even though on the date on which the opposite party No. 1 stood divorced. It could not foreclose her right to file a complaint for that offence in view of the aforesaid position. It is also not very happy to know that the compromise which has been arrived at between the parties, as it has been stated, after payment of a substantial amount while there are at least 5 other accused in the charge-sheet. What about them? Can the compromise be binding upon them? These are questions essentially pertaining to the factual aspect and this Court when exercising its power vested under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. should not embark upon such an enquiry more so when charge-sheet has been submitted. The process of Section 239 of the Cr. P.C. is available to the petitioner and the grievance taken in this application should be canvassed at the correct stage in accordance with the procedure known to law. Revisional application is disposed of accordingly. Xerox certified copy, if applied for, be supplied on usual undertakings.